From what I've looked into it, running knots doesn't protect you from other's using the network for their own agenda (I'm not co-signing anyone else's agenda, as I only control what I can control). You can run knots, but know that the node software will still carry (cache) at least 100 non standard transactions in order to help with block reconstruction. I get the fact that no one wants to be associated with things they believe are abhorrent (I don't either), but it simply is not true that these things would be plain text and human readable/discernible without willingly running the bytes through a translator (decryption). *Also, this type of info is being XOR'd (obfuscated) through randomized XOR-key (making it more difficult to simply unscramble, kinda like the idea of a nonce [number once]) *This is assuming you are running Core 28 or newer with initial block download. If running a prior version, there is an XOR tool that does not require you to re-download the entire block history again. The main goal should be to have honest users making transactions using bitcoin's network to drown out any perceived illicit materials making it's way into blocks (gate-kept by block size and fees), not appeal to authority based on subjective (albeit consensus) morality I'd push back on point 1. You want bitcoin to be a monetary network (and by your measure it very well might be). This won't be absolutely true until it is unanimously used as such by all humans on this planet. Until then, the absolute truth is that bitcoin is a messaging system (based on concise design of the code being run) I agree with point 2. The only problem here is that what is considered 'illicit' or undesirable changes throughout history. This creates a constant power struggle over the narrative of what is subjectively undesirable to the largest cohort of humans As to point 3., my original post was being facetious, being we are using that platform right now. I'm trying to draw the parallels between both networks. Nostr, at is foundation, is a messaging network (just as bitcoin is). The problem of content (or transaction) curation leads to the issue mentioned above about point 2. I appreciate your response and respect it. These are ultimately my thoughts and it is not meant to be imposed on you. Please run Knots or whatever software you choose. Ultimately I find we can all be stronger together and will find the way through discourse. Cheers!

Likewise, I appreciate we could discuss this in a civil manner (quite rare these days) I find appealing to the text in the white paper, in today's context vs. when it was written, requires also acknowledging that the code pushed on Jan 3 2009 is not the same as it is today. Hell, even the 21M supply cap wasn't coded in the original software release (see

GitHub

bips/bip-0042.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to bitcoin/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.

), nor was the supply cap even mentioned in the white paper. Op_return wasn't added until 2014 (same version release [Bitcoin Core version 0.9.0] that the above BIP was added to consensus). So to appeal to the white paper as the absolute intent of the project would be a little faulty in my opinion

Bitcoin has technically changed over time yes, but it's identity is clear. Bitcoin having changed over time doesn't mean that any additional change is valid. The appeal is not to the exact written text of the white paper, but to the explicit identity of the technology. It is a cash system. That's why people like it, that's why people use it. In terms of storing and transmitting multi-media, there's much more appropriate and better ways. This mirrors the legal concept known as the "spirit of the law": the meaning of the law when it was written. Following the law literally can sometimes violate the spirit in which is was written. The spirit of Bitcoin is as the title of the paper suggests. If we wind up going from a "cash system" to "multi-media system", we've made a wrong turn. Putting multi media on Bitcoin simply because you can is violating the spirit of Bitcoin. To use a crude analogy: You could encode image data into a series of electronic bank transfer "reference" fields by breaking it up into tiny chunks and making a lot of transfers. It's obvious to anyone that this is not the point of those fields. Violating the intent of the system is how we categorize "hacks" from proper use. Appealing to the identity of a bank as a "financial institution" is not invalidated by the mere fact that banking has evolved over time or that people can hack it.

All fair points. You've given me a bit to think about...no pun intended